[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Ham Priday]

On 7/31/09 at 2:24 AM, Bo said to Matt --


> ZAMM (in retrospect) rips the metaphysical rank from SOM by
> postulating a deeper reality of which SOM (now merely the S/O
> distinction) is a fall-out.  In the full-fledged MOQ - with intellect
> the S/O aggregate - we see the enormous impact the MOQ will
> have on Western philosophy. With one stroke the trail of paradoxes
> that SOM has left since the Greeks - climaxing with Kant - dissolves.
> They emerged because the S/O was regarded as fundamental -
> as the meta-reality.

I cannot accept your premise that the S/O duality has "metaphysical" ranking 
or status.

The term "metaphysics" is derived from the Greek roots "meta-" (meaning 
"beyond" or "after") and "physis" (nature or physical reality), and it 
originally referred to the writings of Aristotle that followed his 
investigation of the sciences.  Traditionally, metaphysics is the branch of 
philosophy that attempts to understand the fundamental nature of reality, 
whether visible, invisible, or transcendent.  Hence, 'SOM' is actually a 
misnomer.  The subject/object perspective has always been the universal 
worldview.  It is not now, nor has it ever been, "metaphysics".

Also, with due respect for Mr. Pirsig, I see no evidence for what you 
foresee as an "enormous impact the MOQ will have on Western philosophy." 
You describe the S/O duality as a fallout from a "deeper reality" in which 
"intellect is the S/O aggregate."   Aggregate is simply a fancy word for 
"collection".  Are you suggesting that merely by positing subjects and 
objects as a collection of constituent patterns, instead of a duality, 
Pirsig has transformed philosophy for all time?  That smacks of hyperbole to 
me.

The MOQ is a euphemistic philosophy whose central theme is that Quality (DQ) 
is primary to experience and "moves toward betterness" over time.  Even if 
what we perceive as objects are only patterns of this quality, evolution is 
the history of the universe, e.g., the physical (experiential)world. 
Quality (Value) itself is an aesthetic sensibility of the subject.  The 
truth of the matter is that Pirsig's thesis never really gets beyond 
'physis', the dual nature of existence as understood by the early Greeks.

Therefore, I was somewhat surprised by your closing remarks to Matt:

> Such a dissolution we have an example of in the early Greek physics
> and its fallacious premises that produced a lot of paradoxes (Xenon's
> Achilles and the Turtle f.ex) With Newton's physics new premises the
> paradoxes weren't exactly solved, they just disappeared without a
> trace.  The MOQ has done the same, but to you (all)  the SOM
> paradoxes are so infinite dear, what would academical philosophy do
> without them?

The so-called "parodoxes" existed before the Greek premises and Newton's 
laws reflected on them.  And they exist today, despite the attempts of 
Pirsig to render them "patterns of quality".  The quality may be "real", but 
quality could not be known wthout a sensible agent to pattern it.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

-- Ham